Conspiracy or not, TPTB love 9/11

I think we can ALL agree, based on the unending wars, the increased defense spending, the permanent bases in the middle east, and the mass
surveillance system now in place.... whether they created 9/11 or not, TPTB are SO happy 9/11 happened!!! So happy!!

You read articles saying if NSA had this system in place before 9/11 could they have possibly averted it?? Come on... Why would they want to do that?
9/11 is the mother who gave birth to the "new" United States.... The New World really...

Yes, TPTB love 9/11, they are grateful for 9/11, 9/11 now trumps the Constitution. TPTB have benefitted so much from 9/11. Truly a godsend. They would
never change it even if they could--- and KNOWING this as most people do now, should be enough to make every free-thinking person suspicious of what
really happened.

The fact that the media pretends the actions of our government aren't highly suspicious, and the media will actually suggest people are "crazy" for
even thinking the government could do such a thing-- To have so much nationalist faith from supposed unbiased news outlets-- This should be a
horrifying clue to the reality we live in.

Couldnt agree more. From invading resource rich nations to stripping us of our rights, 9/11 was a Globalist's wet dream.

When they tried to tie Ron Paul into the Truth Movement, he stated that he didnt think there was a conspiracy (though I'm not sure if he was being
honest), but he did say that 9/11 was being exploited to push agendas which had been in place for some time.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

On September 11, 2001, George W. Bush wrote in his journal: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." He was echoing the summary of a
September, 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" published by a neoconservative think tank called the Project for a New American
Century (PNAC).

Zelikow, in his own words, before 9/11.

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes
invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the
relevant political community."

So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be well scripted.

In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.

Here are Zelikow's 1998 words:

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of
thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own
borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable
limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists
seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared
to what will happen "after."

While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in
his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's
presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth'
but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not
necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their
power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director
of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the
September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush
administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over
to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a
significant document in the War on Terrorism.

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe
it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in
peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and
after. The United States might respond with.."

~ Philip Zelikow, BEFORE September 11th, 2001

It was THE POLICY, you see.

And as we can also see now in hindsight, a very VERY BAD one, at that.

And now we all know, so maybe it wasn't such a smart thing to endorse and authorize after all - didn't serve the country well that's for sure.

It's Mr. Zelikow's historical tipping point, not in the form of an imagined wet dream, but his and "their" very worst nightmare.

9/11 is leaking..

It's way way WAYYYYYYYY worse than the Snowden Leak, which is like sweet kisses compared to 9/11 leaking all over the world as well as throughout the
United States.

Process it before the wave hits..

Certain people need to learn how to cry, and history really does repeat itself, needlessly.

Let there be justice for victims in what must be learned from this entire historical episode of insanity that kicked off the 21st century, the wound
of which savior Obama was not able and not willing to even begin to heal, carrying the ball of Bush policy in the wake of 9/11.

Next to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was intended to be known far and wide, this is the worst leak in the history of the human
race.

September 11th, 2001.

Has anyone forgot?

That's a terrible leak because you can't plug it.

The leak, via the "honey pot" of 9/11 presented and re-presented to the world, just cannot be believed for 100's of reasons, you can even forget about
the alternative hypotheses (conspiracy theories) - the OS, on the very face of itself, cannot be believed, and won't be and ins't, the whole world
over.

We know what happened for the most part on 9/11, it's blatant, overt, and inconsolable and unforgiveable, and it's not going away any time soon, as an
issue. They made it "relevant" the "relevant political community" who are themselves no longer relevant.

Talk about "blowback"?!

That's what they get and by God they deserve it for what was done and then, nearly as bad, what was covered up and never really investigated.

It won't last, the public myth about it as a public perception of it's immediate past when practically everyone already suspects that something about
it stinks to high heaven to begin with - so it's fundamental question persists - what really happened on September 11th, 2001?, and can we tell what
happened there just by LOOKING at it, and scrutinizing the events and phenomenon themselves as they were recorded and rendered large, in perpetuity.

The home of the brave will at some point remember to be brave, and you just cannot fool all the people all the time, it's impossible.

9/11 is leaking... and there's no stopping it.

It's the way it was rendered.

And it can't be unseen once seen.

The leak is a one way firehose, sadly.

There's nothing to compare, in terms of how bad it is, or it's implications, except as i mentioned maybe the cross of Jesus Christ who said "it was
the stone that was rejected by the builders (the little person, the "throwaway") - that became the keystone".

And it has the farthest reaching security issues, but they're not coming from without, nor from "home grown" Jihadists or malcontents, but from
within the very system itself that begat 9/11, covered it up and then made use of in regards to all manner of abuses of power, so it demands, at the
very least, a deep and thorough introspective and internal inquiry, if not a public one.

But if they don't snap to it and do the hard work of "re-integration", if they don't cry, or go to their knees, and if they willfully forget or try to
pretend that the elephant isn't still in the room - whoa to them because then there will never been any way to recover from it's historical judgement
when the wave hits and it's already too late to do or say the appropriate things that might need to be done and said.

it can't be just "spun" once this issue comes 'round full circle and home to roost where the buck supposedly stops, and it will find them out, like
birds from nowhere eating the flesh of the generals like in the Book of Revelation, with Philip D. Zelikow playing the role of the false prophet.

I think you have a point in some respects, but i would say that 9/11 was taken advantage of by some rather than it made them happy. Primarily I would
say it was taken advantage of by the American Neo-Conservitive movement (many of whom made up the Bush administration) who used 9/11 to really push
forward with their own agenda and politics. They done the same during the cold war, I think a deeper understanding of American NeoConservationism
would really go someway towards dispelling many of the myths relating to 9/11.

Did it make the Neocon's "happy", I dont know, some of them are pretty dam evil in my view and sadly i can see some of them getting joy out of the
disaster of 9/11 because it enabled them to really launch themselves back onto the political forefront with a sympathetic public.

Then again I suppose allot of the what the OP is saying depends on who one believes are TBTB, but then again thats a more complex question that is
probably a little off-topic. If the OP is talking about the government of the day however I would say that after the even there where probably some
who were secretly "happy" about the events of 9/11 because of what it done for them politically.

That is not to say that they were in anyway involved in the attacks mind you.

Also OP you state in your OP that:

the increased defense spending, the permanent bases in the middle east, and the mass surveillance system now in place

and

You read articles saying if NSA had this system in place before 9/11 could they have possibly averted it??

The NSA had ECHELON in place long before 9/11 but the complexities of this system and PRISM mean that its not quite as simple as sucking up all
telecommunications and finding out what all the bad guys are up to. Also before 9/11 many Al-Qa'ida operatives switched to more low-tech methods of
communication. Despite this however I am almost certain i remember reading about a ECHELON intercept before 9/11 that was later found to have
something to do with the attacks and it is also understood that the system played a role in the capture of KSM in 2003.

I can not remember the details all i know is that i can recall reading somewhere that ECHELON had some kind of role, that may have been connected with
the PISCES system I really do not know as i say I am basing that of my very fallible memory.

Besides I was just pointing out to the OP that these systems were in existence before 9/11 and that some in the American Neocon movement might have
been "happy" about the attacks.

You read articles saying if NSA had this system in place before 9/11 could they have possibly averted it?? Come on... Why would they want to do that?
9/11 is the mother who gave birth to the "new" United States.... The New World really...

That quote pissed me off to no end! I love how they act like 9/11 snuck up on them, having no clue what was about to go down.

Whether you believe it was an inside job or not, it's clear they knew of an attack and did NOTHING to stop it.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think you have a point in some respects, but i would say that 9/11 was taken advantage of by some rather than it made them happy. Primarily I would
say it was taken advantage of by the American Neo-Conservitive movement (many of whom made up the Bush administration) who used 9/11 to really push
forward with their own agenda and politics. They done the same during the cold war, I think a deeper understanding of American NeoConservationism
would really go someway towards dispelling many of the myths relating to 9/11.

Did it make the Neocon's "happy", I dont know, some of them are pretty dam evil in my view and sadly i can see some of them getting joy out of the
disaster of 9/11 because it enabled them to really launch themselves back onto the political forefront with a sympathetic public.

So did it make them happy, or not?

Even if they only took advantage of 911 (sorry, but they did a lot more than that), they would be doing so because that is what makes them happy. Why
else would they do it??

Even if they only took advantage of 911 (sorry, but they did a lot more than that), they would be doing so because that is what makes them happy. Why
else would they do it??

I do not think that publicly any of them would ever say it made them happy or was advantageous politically for them in anyway but they did take
advantage of 9/11 to promote their philosophy on American politics and use it to influence policy. In secret I am pretty sure some of the would be
very happy about hat. However in public they would tell you about how saddened they where (initially they probably where) how they have to be making
all these really tough choices that they want to protect America by doing what needs to be done and all that kind of stuff.

Now to some extent if you compare the Clinton administrations dealing with terrorism to Bush's I think that the NeoCon's may have been a necessary
evil to protect America at a time when it was exposed as being very venerable. I do not in anyway agree with much of what they done but in the context
of preventing another 9/11 i can understand it.

But where they happy that 9/11 happened so they could take full advantage of it, in my view I think some of them were probably very happy watching the
news that day.

But that is only my opinion i do not know that for a "fact", nor does it mean that I think these same people where behind the attacks.

I think a deeper understanding of American NeoConservationism would really go someway towards dispelling many of the myths relating to 9/11.

I can't seem to validate that considering the most liberal President in history (and damn proud of it) along with a super majority in both
legislative branches enveloped and greatly expanded the policies of the NeoConservationism you speak of. No President in American history has expanded
unauthorized data collection than the most liberal to have ever served. Which I, and most, unfortunately see the need for and back the President-and
for surly I would be labeled a Neoconservative because of support of some Political Action Committees (PAC).

That arguments never works as it is right down the line with most of the threads here that suspension of reality is the basis in need of the threads.
Anyone who thinks a political movement would murder nearly 3000 of it's citizens to change policy is not thinking in the boundary of realism.

Also, the term American NeoConservationism is racist and shows bias that is unproven. The prefix 'neo' refers to new or just joined a movement so
in the context of your usage it implies those who were former centrist have joined the American Conservationism movement. The, or those, of centrist
origin left their position because of the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. There is no evidence whatsoever of that.

The American Nazi Party is a legal political action committee with a charter and elected officials-and are sometimes branded as
NeoConservationism-however they are not. They legally, and through political action, seek a national socialist movement in America. Your opinion that
they were 'happy' about 9/11 based on the assumption that they are Neoconservative is again out of the stream of reality.

Saying that exploring those labeled NEO Conservationist would lead to better understanding of the murders of 2978 Americans is not only inflammatory
and outright prejudism it's also illegal.

I think that needs to be rephrased as I don't believe you meant to single out legal American PAC's or label them complicit with a terrorist attack.

I think that needs to be rephrased as I don't believe you meant to single out legal American PAC's or label them complicit with a terrorist
attack.

Do you just enjoy picking arguments for the sake of arguments?

I think its quite clear that I in no way meant that any American politician was complicit in any terrorist attack I state that in my posts that
although i think there might have been some neoconservitives who might have taken some joy in the attacks success because it propelled them onto the
political stage and provided justification for their policies in line with their philosophy.

That is all I am saying, when the OP asked if "TBTB" (whom i take to be the government of the day) were "happy" about the attacks my answer
unfortunately is that in my opinion because of the political impact it had, yes some might have been "happy" about the attacks. I am in no way saying
that those same individuals were complicit in the attacks and i have said as much in my posts.

Also, the term American NeoConservationism is racist

What!

how the hell is that Racist?

Neoconservatism as a political philosophy is largely accredited with being American in origin and I am talking about American Neoconservatives so how
the hell can that possibly be racist. You wouldn't call me Racist for talking about "American libertarians" or any other political ideology would you?

By Neoconservative I am talking about those who subscribe to many (or all of) the philosophical political ideas that are commonly known as "American
Neoconservatism", the students of Leo Strauss such as Paul Wolfowitz for instance. I am not talking about centrist politicians who after 9/11 then
became new (neo) Conservatives but rather the members of Bush's inner circle who openly admit to being American Neoconservatives.

Furthermore, when I say that a deeper understanding of American Neoconservativsm (again not racist) would dispel some of the myths of 9/11 what i
mean by that is that if people had a deeper understanding of the politically philosophy that was pushing behind the policies that came out after 9/11
they might have a better understanding of why they came into being. For example a key aspect of American neoconservitism is the idea of aggressively
promoting America's international interests this some would argue manifested itself in what we now call the "Bush doctrine".

Again to be totally clear i am not saying that these same neoconservatives were complicit with the attacks or even "happy" that almost 3000 died. What
I am saying is that for them the political fallout was advantageous and they might have been "happy" about that.

I would say, if neoconservatives were not complicit in 9/11, then this is what their conversations had to be like back in Sept 2001:

"Wow! Isn't it crazy this happened? We just wrote about this exact thing a year ago! A 'new Pearl Harbor'! they're even calling it that on the
news! How weird? Exactly a year after describing what we would do if this happened-- It happened! And now we're in power! What luck! What amazing
luck this is."

9/11 is exactly what Neocons wanted. That's all. It's just EXACTLY what they WANTED.

Now, sure, maybe the neo-cons were just lucky, or maybe a little clairvoyant, or maybe they made it happen by the power of thought--- but I would say
for any free-thinking rational person, it should seem highly suspect at the very least.

My point is, nobody should be ridiculed for questioning the events of 9/11. In fact, anyone who knows about the Neocon PNAC and doesn't question
9/11.... Now that's just weird.

spooky24
That arguments never works as it is right down the line with most of the threads here that suspension of reality is the basis in need of the threads.
Anyone who thinks a political movement would murder nearly 3000 of it's citizens to change policy is not thinking in the boundary of realism.

of that very same group, which did not include it's entire "movement" but it's "ruling elite class" or in the words of Zelikow the "relevant
political community". There are a list of names which goes with it as well, a reasonably long list, but not that long.

They came up with the policy, and then saw too it that it was implemented via a combination of LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) as it relates the
hijackers and their movements and activities, to establish the narrative, and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose), and then later, after much time and
pressure by the family members, thoroughly covered it up, in what was never a truly independent investigation, since the guy investigating it was the
very same one who helped to imagine the "transformative, catalyzing and catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor" "elements of a national policy",
itself, three years prior, who's recommendation and language found it's way into fellow Neocon Dick Cheney's PNAC document, which solidified the
policy in geostrategic and military terms, one year before the event itself, even as the first hijacker was entering into the country on a
pre-approved and accelerated visa program.

And when we really examine the whole thing, that conclusion is entirely self evident, so i don't see why or how it could be considered "thinking that
is not in the boundary of realism", especially given that the OS cannot be believed by any sane and rational, scientifically minded and HONEST person,
who's entirely committed to the truth and reality at all cost except at the cost of truth and reality itself, no matter what the implications or how
painful the realization and recognition of what is plainly obvious, both in terms of it's history and what the policy desired, foretold and predicted,
as well as, the actual occurrence of the events and phenomenon themselves, when they happened and as they happened and were recorded happening, in
real time and in perpetuity.

9/11 is leaking.. and there's nothing that can be done about it.

Like i said, better to try to somehow process it, and effectively internalize it and bind and chain the devil within, before the wave hits full force
at that moment in time and history when it's by far too late to do and say all the appropriate things that ought to have been done and said, a long
time ago.

You're on the wrong side of history with your little library of official story 9/11 material, and your efforts are entirely in vain given the way the
event itself rendered and expressed itself, both in reality, as well as in THE
POLICY itself.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.